3 ms·

There is basically a point in cinema history before this film and after this film. So much of what Kubrick did here has never been replicated, few have even co

There is basically a point in cinema history before this film and after this film. So much of what Kubrick did here has never been replicated, few have even come close to the impact he created on the industry and the level of professionalism he created. However, that's not to say the end result is particularly enjoyable for me to watch. It's long runtime wears down on me and by the first hour I find myself wanting to watch many scenes at 1.5x speed just to feel like I'm watching a movie and not staring at slightly-moving still photography.

js2 10y ago
Curious, do you feel the same way about Barry Lyndon?
- ghaff 10y ago
  I pretty much do. Barry Lyndon was also a cinematic tour de force for the time in its use of available light. But, like 2001, it's a long and rather cold film and one that I ultimately respect more than I love. (In the case of 2001, it is on my list of best films, but if I'm being honest that's more on the basis of its place in film history and scenes that are part of both film and broader cultural memory than because of a particular desire to watch the movie as a whole repeatedly.)
Animats 10y ago
Films have been speeding up for a century, in two ways. Editorial geography disappeared in the 1960s. Editorial geography example (not mine): Bogart gets phone call. Bogart gets up, walks out door. Bogart walks out door of building, gets into cab. Scene of Bogart in cab. Bogart gets out of cab, pays cabbie. Bogart walks into apartment building lobby. Pushes elevator button. Shot of elevator indicator coming down. Doors open. Bogart gets in. Shot of elevator indicator going up. Elevator doors open. Bogart gets out, walks down hall, rings doorbell. Lauren Bacall opens door. Bogart goes in. That's editorial geography. At one time, it was felt that audiences would get lost without such a sequence. Today, writers and directors would skip directly from the phone call to an interior shot of the apartment. Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless" (1960) is said to have put an end to that. Related to this is average shot length as a metric.[1][2] "2001" has an average shot length of 13 seconds. At the other extreme are the Bourne movies, which are now down to around 1.1 seconds per shot. James Bond movies have sped up over the years, with "Dr. No" at 7 seconds and "Die Another Day (2002)" at 2.4 seconds. This is an industry-wide trend. Trailers are insane. Trailers routinely break the 1 second barrier today. So there's been a speedup in two dimensions - removal of unnecessary context, and shorter shots. To a modern viewer, 2001 looks quite slow-paced. With enough short shots, films can conceal the lack of a plot. (This is a problem with effects-heavy movies. After you leave the theater, you realize the plot made no sense. But it was a great effects demo reel.) [1] http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php [2] http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/average-shot-length.html http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/average-shot-leng...
- reedlaw 10y ago
  That's why I can watch trailers of new movies and feel like I've seen enough. Usually you get the gist of the plot (or lack thereof) along with plenty of spectacular scenes making the rest of the movie unnecessary.
  - taneq 10y ago
    The problem is that most trailers actually don't give you enough to really understand the movie, and they're generally pretty good about not giving spoilers... but they're produced to give you the impression that you've basically seen the whole movie. So it's really easy (I do it too) to dismiss an entire movie based on a 15-second trailer. Unless you're talking about the Tomb Raider movie. The trailer with the fight between Lara Croft and the robot is basically the first 5 minutes of the movie and you can stop watching after that. :P
qbrass 10y ago
>However, that's not to say the end result is particularly enjoyable for me to watch. It's long runtime wears down on me and by the first hour I find myself wanting to watch many scenes at 1.5x speed just to feel like I'm watching a movie and not staring at slightly-moving still photography. Blade Runner has the same issue. Great visuals, but you have to watch them for twice as long as you need to.

js2 10y ago

Curious, do you feel the same way about Barry Lyndon?

ghaff 10y ago
I pretty much do. Barry Lyndon was also a cinematic tour de force for the time in its use of available light. But, like 2001, it's a long and rather cold film and one that I ultimately respect more than I love. (In the case of 2001, it is on my list of best films, but if I'm being honest that's more on the basis of its place in film history and scenes that are part of both film and broader cultural memory than because of a particular desire to watch the movie as a whole repeatedly.)

Animats 10y ago

Films have been speeding up for a century, in two ways. Editorial geography disappeared in the 1960s. Editorial geography example (not mine): Bogart gets phone call. Bogart gets up, walks out door. Bogart walks out door of building, gets into cab. Scene of Bogart in cab. Bogart gets out of cab, pays cabbie. Bogart walks into apartment building lobby. Pushes elevator button. Shot of elevator indicator coming down. Doors open. Bogart gets in. Shot of elevator indicator going up. Elevator doors open. Bogart gets out, walks down hall, rings doorbell. Lauren Bacall opens door. Bogart goes in. That's editorial geography. At one time, it was felt that audiences would get lost without such a sequence. Today, writers and directors would skip directly from the phone call to an interior shot of the apartment. Jean-Luc Godard's "Breathless" (1960) is said to have put an end to that. Related to this is average shot length as a metric.[1][2] "2001" has an average shot length of 13 seconds. At the other extreme are the Bourne movies, which are now down to around 1.1 seconds per shot. James Bond movies have sped up over the years, with "Dr. No" at 7 seconds and "Die Another Day (2002)" at 2.4 seconds. This is an industry-wide trend. Trailers are insane. Trailers routinely break the 1 second barrier today. So there's been a speedup in two dimensions - removal of unnecessary context, and shorter shots. To a modern viewer, 2001 looks quite slow-paced. With enough short shots, films can conceal the lack of a plot. (This is a problem with effects-heavy movies. After you leave the theater, you realize the plot made no sense. But it was a great effects demo reel.) [1] http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php [2] http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/average-shot-length.html http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/average-shot-leng...

reedlaw 10y ago
That's why I can watch trailers of new movies and feel like I've seen enough. Usually you get the gist of the plot (or lack thereof) along with plenty of spectacular scenes making the rest of the movie unnecessary.
- taneq 10y ago
  The problem is that most trailers actually don't give you enough to really understand the movie, and they're generally pretty good about not giving spoilers... but they're produced to give you the impression that you've basically seen the whole movie. So it's really easy (I do it too) to dismiss an entire movie based on a 15-second trailer. Unless you're talking about the Tomb Raider movie. The trailer with the fight between Lara Croft and the robot is basically the first 5 minutes of the movie and you can stop watching after that. :P

qbrass 10y ago

>However, that's not to say the end result is particularly enjoyable for me to watch. It's long runtime wears down on me and by the first hour I find myself wanting to watch many scenes at 1.5x speed just to feel like I'm watching a movie and not staring at slightly-moving still photography. Blade Runner has the same issue. Great visuals, but you have to watch them for twice as long as you need to.